Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > >> +test_expect_success 'restore autostash on editor failure' ' >> + test_when_finished "git reset --hard" && >> + echo uncommited-content >file0 && >> + ( >> + test_set_editor "false" && >> + test_must_fail git rebase -i --autostash HEAD^ >> + ) && >> + echo uncommited-content >expected && > > While making sure this case works is crucial, it is not an > interesting failure mode, is it? Can we also have "does not apply > cleanly anymore" case, too? It is "interesting" if you mean "matches real-life use-case", as it corresponds to the case where the user killed the editor (as reported by Daniel Hahler indeed, "Abort with ":cq", which will make Vim exit non-zero"). If you mean "likely to trigger nasty bugs", then indeed testing the case when apply_autostash fails is interesting: for example, calling die_abort when "stash apply" fails is tempting, but would lead to infinite recursion (it doesn't seem to be the case, but a test would be nice). Setting the editor to something that modifies uncommited-content before 'false' should do the trick. -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html